From Gloria Sykes–Why has Peter Schmeidel not been disciplined.

Dear Readers;

GJS has a number of complaints against PS, yet the ARDC keeps on ignorning them and dismissing them–despite the fact they have received the 3 affidavits here and have more than adequate reason to KNOW the probate court has been acting without jurisdiction for THREE years, and yet they do nothing, they say nothing.

In a similar vein, I sent Leah Black and the Administrator a copy of John Wyman’s book, and they know that case is operation without jurisdiction for three years.  Mr. John Wyman, as you know, has been complaining at the top of his lungs against everyone involved in that–including the US atty’s office, and nothing has been done there.

Big sigh.

So please read GJS’s letter below and take care


ARDC Chicago and Springfield offices
Via facsimile
October 8, 2012
From: Gloria Jean Sykes 773-910-33310
          6016 N. Avondale Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60631
RE:  Attorney Peter Schmiedel
Dear Administrator,
I have filed many complaints against attorney Peter Schmiedel and to date, none have been investigated, let alone acknowledged, but each has been willy-nilly dismissed (although I have yet to receive one letter from the ARDC dismissing a complaint against him: apparently, the complaints just vanish!)  Below please find the last complaint against attorney Peter Schmiedel, the attorney I once spoke to (October 2009) outside Judge Connors Courtroom and after providing him with privileged information, and asking him if he would represent me, upon his request, he gave me his business card and asked me to call his office and contact the ‘intake’ personal and set up and appointment.  Remember, I provided him with information about ‘my’ situation, to which he gave me his business card and asked me to call. I find that Peter Schmiedel then, three months later, being retained by Carolyn Toerpe quite interesting and terribly wrong!  That said, on Oct. 3, 2012, once again Peter Schmiedel LIED to the Court in order to sway the ruling in his favor.  I am getting the transcripts, but let it be known, that Judge Stuart stayed her ruling pending the outcome of an appeal based on the core of this wrongful guardianship of my Mother, Mary G. Sykes: jurisdiction.
To wit, let me resubmit the complaint filed on March 31, 2012 against attorney Peter Schmiedel as none of the violations of the Codes of Professionalism have changed, he has simply been more empowered because the ARDC apparently is protecting him in order to use his testimony to disbar or sanction or do harm to attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky. It is also apparent that ARDC agent Lea Black has filed similar charges against Kenneth Ditkowsky — and attorney Kenneth Ditkowsky has never had an appearance on file in the Sykes case or in any case regarding me or my mother.  Attorney Lea Black, according to attorney Joel Brodsky, gave out confidential information in and regarding the first face to face interview with Kenneth Ditkowsky — as I guess she has give out documents he may have provided her in order to discredit me.  I find this behavior very sad, and in light that I complained about Joel Brodsky and provided the Administrator with verified court transcripts showing that Brodsky said that Lea Black provided him with confidential information about the aforesaid meeting with Ditkowsky — it is interesting that Lea Black is still an investigator at the ARDC and in fact, held to be the lead attorney in the case against Kenneth Ditkowsky.  Is this behavior appropriate for ARDC attorneys?  
Finally, and with all due respect, how do I file a complaint against ARDC attorney Lea Black, when in fact, she is an agent of the ARDC. Apparently she has used an unverified email claiming I wrote claiming I “Lied”.  Let me remind this Administration, Lea Black’s statement of fact to bring this document into the ARDC trial as evidence to discredit me as a witness, is a forged and altered documents, and I emphatically deny that I have ever been untruthful in any position I have taken, or continue to take, and/or asserted in any Illinois court proceedings, and/or in any court proceeding, including in the Probate Division, Forcible and Detainer Division, U.S. District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and or the Indian Court. 
Thank you for your quick response on the complaint below as it was file on March 31, 2012 and as far as I see, NEVER investigated. That said, doesn’t attorney Peter Schmiedel have a serious conflict of interest in representing Carolyn Toerpe when in fact, he asked me questions about my situation in the Probate proceedings where I was just an ‘interested party’ and gave me his card merely three months before being retained by Carolyn Toerpe through a payment agreement that financially exploits and willfully deprives my mother of her assets, her home, and all of my assets and home/property, too!  
I AM RESUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY PETER SCHMIEDEL of which I’ve asked and given permission for all people to republish in order to protect my mother, Mary G. Sykes’ rights, liberties, and LIFE.
ARDC Chicago and Springfield offices
Via facsimile
March 31, 2012
From: Gloria Jean Sykes 773-910-33310
          6016 N. Avondale Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60631
RE:  Attorney Peter Schmiedel
To Whom It May Concern at the ARDC,
(Most of this was filed with the ARDC in Nov. 2011: as I heard nothing from the ARDC regarding this complaint, I am refiling and adding recent violations perpetrated by attorney Peter Schmiedel.  Please note that Peter Schmiedel instructs other lawyers and law enforcement on how to investigate and prove)
Professionalism should be a part of every Illinois lawyer’s daily practice, or so I’ve read and been told. Attorney Peter Schmiedel may have memorized the Rules of Professional Responsibility in order to procure a license to practice law, but clearly he has failed in application. The rules, he can argue are unclear, and ethical dilemmas, ambiguous, but since he filed his appearance In Re the Estate of Mary G. Sykes, 2009 P 4585, Peter Schmiedel has repeatedly distorted the facts, misrepresented the facts, maliciously and intentionally LIED not only to Probate and Forcible judges, but also a Federal Judge (Transcript attacked from Bankruptcy proceeding, October 25, 2011): Mr.    the rules and case law make clear what is required.   In Jerman v. Carlisle, it is noted, “ignorance of the law is no excuse****) Pursuant Winthrop v. Supreme Court of Illinois, 848 N.E. 2d 961 (2006) 219 Ill.2d 526 302 Ill.Dec. 397,  “Our goal in imposing discipline on an attorney is not to punish the attorney, but rather to protect the integrity of the legal profession, and protect the administration of justice from reproach”. (also see In Re Cutright, 2009), Peter Schmiedel must be disbarred and sanctioned!
Schmiedel has violated so many of the Rules of Professional Conduct, it is impossible to name them all, although I will touch on a few.
Counts I, II, III  and IV are set before you clearly and concisely as possible: court transcripts have been provided to you in the past: PLEASE TURN TO TRANSCRIPTS OF October 25, 2011 where Peter Schmiedel appeared before a Federal Judge Hollis n Bankruptcy Court.134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2).    (1) failure to disclose a material fact to a tribunal (134 Ill.2d R. 3.5(h));  (2) engaged in conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(4));  (3) engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (210 Ill.2d R. 8.4(a)(5));  and (4) engaged in conduct “which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute” in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 (210 Ill.2d R. 770).
Peter Schmiedel committed violations of Rule 3.3(a)(2) when he failed to advise the Probate Court that his client closed Mary G. Sykes’ account at the Pullman Bank and removed all the contents from a safety deposited box at the same location, one that had not only Mary G. Sykes’ name on it I was a renter too!
1.     Peter Schmiedel knows his client is in possession of a substantial amount of Mother’s funds, as well as legal contracts between Mother and Me, Mother and lawyers, including a draft of the new Trust mother had initiated on June 25, 2009.
2.     Peter Schmiedel kept from the court Mother’s bank statements from 2006, 2007, 2008 2009, and 2010 because he knows that Mother had substantial funds in three accounts (Schmiedel’s client only gave numbers to two of the accounts),
3.     Peter Scshmiedel knows that Mary G. Sykes / Gloria Jean Sykes (me) had a bag of gold and silver coins in the safety deposit box owned by Mother and me, and that his client is now in possession of those coins;
4.     Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no CD or IRA account that Mother opened in January 2009 for $4000, leaving his client the sole beneficiary;
5.     Peter Schmiedel knows that there is no “joint’ account between Mother and his client wheeby Mother gave his client about $25,000 in 2005 (or 06);
6. Peter Schmiedel knows that his client Carolyn Toerpe is not the Trustee of the Mary G. Sykes Trust and that it’s a “naked trust” and that Mary G. Sykes, if she were to diagnosed incompetent and there was a trustee, then only Mary’s primary doctor, P. Patel can authorize such diagnosis.  (Peter Schmiedel has seen the letter Dr. Patel wrote to his client stating that he refused to sign the CCP211 because Mary is competent and Mary told him not to!)
7. Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client is not a PhD and yet he did not notify the court that the legal document his client filed signing PhD after her name is fraudulent (the CCP211);
8.  Attorney Schmiedel knows that his client has over medicated, and medically neglected Mary G. Sykes and that he has in fact told his client to isolate Mary from family and friends;
9.  Attorney Sschmiedel has seen the letters Mary has hand-written denouncing Toerpe and asking for an attorney: he has viewed all the digital recordings of Mary proving she is not only highly competent, but also that Mary stated her wishes clearly and that Schmiedel’s client cannot sell Mary’s home, cannot evict me from Mary’s home and cannot force the sale on my home;
10.     Peter Schmiedel knows that none of the settlement money from the Lumbermen’s case belongs to Mother and that Mother was as she still is, highly competent then and now;
11.     And, Peter Schmiedel knows that his client is the named respondent on a petition for an order of protection and therefore, his client cannot be the guardian of Mary G. Sykes, my Mother; that it was Mother who filed the verified Petition for an order of protection to stop Peter Schmiedel’s client from doing exactly what she is trying to do, and that is financially and emotionally sterilize Mary G. Sykes through retaliating against me!
  This rule provides, “In appearing in a professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not ***(2) fail to disclose to a tribunal a material fact knows to the lawyer when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client.”  134 Ill.2d R. 3.3(a)(2).  Furthermore, Peter Schmiedel has told not only the Probate Court, but the Forcible and the Bankruptcy courts that he also represents Mary G. Sykes, which leads me to…
(2)  Peter Schmiedel has a serious CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  His client Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent to the petition for an order of protection, has also secured herself as the sole beneficiary of the Mary G. Sykes estate, of which Peter Schmiedel made an agreement for payment from the (1) assets belonging to me from the Lumbermen’s case (see Lumbermen’s v. Gloria Sykes), the sale of Mother’s home, and the forced partition and sale of my home, where I placed Mother as a joint tenant for survivorship only and mother, in her trust stipulates that her “ONLY INTEREST’ is if she precedes me in life. Peter Schmiedel knows that it’s an “expectancy of an inheritance” and not an asset to Mother’s Trust and yet Peter Schmiedl has hired a court friendly psychologist, Gefforey Shaw, who having never met, treated, or even spoke with Mother’s physician in 2008 or current, took the stand many months ago and stated that Mary G. Sykes was ‘incompentent’ on October 18, 2008 and therefore didn’t know what she was signing ****”  Peter Schmiedel also made a pack with one of his GAL buddies to be the Commissioner who determines the sale of my property.
As confusing as this sounds, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a ‘pathological liar’ and has repeatedly misrepresented facts to five judges, including State and Federal Justices; he has deliberately provided false information to Judge Connors, Judge Stuart, Judge Flemming, Judge Garaber, Judge Hollis, Judge Gilbert and to a string of Justices sitting on the Appellate Court, where Judge Connors was spontaneously promoted in Oct., Dov 2010.  That said attorney Peter Schmiedel opens his mouth and ‘lies’ spew in the form of and including misinformation, and false information to the ARDC and it’s Commissioners!  ”Pseudologia fantastica’, or ‘story telling’ in order to prejudice the Court and discredit — a sort of a matrix of fantasy interwoven with some facts is narrated in over 11 volumes of verified court transcripts and most of which the ARDC has in it’s files if, in fact, it kept the numerous and large files of complaints I have submitted. It is my humble opinion that a psychiatrist expert able to read the transcripts and watch and listen to Peter Schmiedel in action in front of a Court, any Court, would probably conclude, attorney Peter Schmiedel is a pathological liar.
Peter Schmiedel should be reminded that “[a] lawyer’s high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions.”  In re Braner, 115 Ill.2d 384 392 105 Ill. Dec. 233, 504 N.E.2d 102 (19987) quoting People ex rel. Attorney General v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 574, 27 N.E. 1096(1891).  Peter Schmiedel should be disbarred and sanctioned.
(3)  Peter Schmiedel violated Rule 4.1(a) by providing false information to 3rdparties, including the Probate Court, Forcible Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, a Federal Judge, Naperville Police, Catholic Charities, (the list is endless).  Therefore, Peter Schmiedel has provided FALSE STATEMENT(S) OF MATERIAL FACT(S) TO A THRID PERSON in order  benefit himself and his client.  To do so, he has also demonized me, all in retaliation for me standing up to protect my Mother (almost 93 years old) and because I have filed complaints against him and asked for his disbarment.  He does this all by hiding behind the color of office and law…. Rule 4.1(1) provides: “In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not (a) make a statement of material fact or law to a third person which statement the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is false.”  134 Ill.2dR. 4.1(a).
(4)  Suffice to say, Peter SChmiedel’s CONDUCT INVOLVES DISHONESTY, FRAUD, DECEIT AND MISREPRESENATION, and therefore he is also in vilation of Rue 8.4(s)(4) and Supreme Court Rule 771.  Rule 8.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shal not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”. 188 Ill.2dR. 8.4(a)(4).  Supremee Court Rule 771 provides that conduct “which tend to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court.”  134 Ill.2d R. 771.  Peter Schmiedel violated both of these rules when he (recently) relayed false information to the Federal Court (Judge Pamela Hollis and the U.S. Trustee) regarding the “Probate Exception” and that my assets, mother’s home, and my home were being probated, therefore the Bankruptcy Court should modify the automatic stays.  (Peter Schmiedel, as transcribed in the attach Transcript, also intentionally prejudiced the court and told Judge Hollis that I “hid money”, “was arrested”,  et al. Peter Schmiedel, in order to fraud the court, had me served with a “Pizza Flyer” and then had attorney Cynthia Farenga’s husband write a verified letter to the court stating that I was served according to procedures…..”)  Peter Schmiedel LIED TO THE COURTS so many times, that this transcript shows that since the ARDC has not disbarred and sanctioned him, but empowered him.
Peter Schmiedel’s conduct involves dishonesty, deceit, and misrepresentation which has brought the legal profession into disrepute!.
(5)  SANCTIONS:  Peter Schmiedel has defrauded not only an elderly woman and knows that her money has been converted (or he is attempting to convert her funds and property), (see In re Holst, 201 Ill.2d 628 (2002); In re Wiard, 198 Ill.2d 662 (2002); In re Garside, 195 Ill.2d 607 (2001); In re Bartley, M.R. 15176 (1998); In re Singer, M.R. 14064 (1997); In re Rotman, 136 Ill.2d 401, 144 Ill.Dec. 776, 556 N.E.2d 243 (1990).)
By not disbarring Peter Schmiedel and sanctioning him, too, you are allowing him to continue his dishonesty and deceitful conduct, and continue to pilfer not only my mother’s property and funds, but my property and funds, too and gives his client, Carolyn Toerpe further opportunity to victimize, financially exploit, and emotionally and medically neglect mother, while Peter Schmiedel and his client continue to retaliate against me.
This retaliation and obstruction of justice also includes the theft of my mail, U.S. Mail he actually brought to the Bankruptcy Court and the Probate Court, that had my name and address on it: Peter Schmiedel refused to return my mail and in fact, the US Postal Inspector is still involved in an investigation.  The one envelop he had was addressed to me: the court read into record also evidence that it had no authorized or any markings ‘return to’ Peter Schmiedel.  Peter Schmiedel told me to my face and with witnesses, that I am a “waste of” his time.  He’s accused me of theft, abusing my mother, and of lying: however, Peter Schmiedel has no evidence of this but obviously clout with certain Courts. That said, Peter Schmiedel admitted to the Probate Court that he “had a good day” when I was illegally and fasely imprisoned, chained to a chair with handcuffs, my freedoms threatened as well as the life of my companion healing pooch: Peter Schmiedel then got the court to cross over state lines and freeze assets of a third party’s bank account.
The ARDC will have a good day too, should the agents do the right thing and investigate Peter Schmiedel, who also orchestrated and succeeded in persuading the sickly Judge Garber to enter an order of possession for his client and denying Mary G. Sykes the right to be in court: this action has caused me serious emotional, physical and financial hardships.  Peter Schmiedel lied to me when he told me that his client was agreeable to giving me ‘ample’ time to remove my property, when in fact, he also told his client to loot, seize evidence and do whatever she can to harass, intimidate and silence me.  Under attorney Peter Schmiedel’s authority, his client is in serious violations of the bankruptcy stays as they have taken unauthorized control and converted all of my person and professional property to the ownership of Carolyn Toerpe.  Peter Schmiedel is also obstructing justice as he has authorized his client to remove, destroy or discard all of my litigation evidence for the Probate Court, Forcible and Detainer, U.S. District Court (ADA complaint where Peter Schmiedel’s client is a defendant); U.S. District Bankruptcy Court adversary proceedings where he, Peter Schmiedel and also his client are Defendants; as well as in the U.S. District Court of Appeals where I will prevail on the merits that Peter Schmiedel has no standing and is not a creditor and therefore, cannot bring a motion to modify any bankruptcy stay.
Additionally, the respondent had also entered into a business transaction with a client without full disclosure[1], made a statement of material fact or law that he should have known was false, and engaged in conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or brings the courts or legal profession into disrepute.  Twohey, 191 Ill.2d at 84, 245 Ill.Dec. 294, 727 N.E.2d 1028.
Therefore a minimum of two year suspension is justifiable as well as Peter Schmiedel reimbursing the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any client protection payments arising from his conduct prior to the termination of the period of suspension.[2]

[1] Peter Schmiedel entered into a business transactions with Carolyn Toerpe, the named respondent for a petition for a protective order, that he would only get paid if (1) he helped get rid of me, Gloria Jean Sykes; and to do that (2) have me evicted and take possession of Mother’s home located at 6014 N. Avondale, (3) sell Mother’s home; (4) take control of my assets and leave me penniless, (5) force a partition of and then sale of my home located at 6016 N. Avondale (6) render me homeless, and (7) not provide any of Mother’s financial statements to the Courts.  Another words, Peter Schmiedel(s) only source of payment was through the wrongful and fraudulent acts of  ***********.
[2] Peter Schmiedel has received numerous complaints to the ARDC verified by me of which court transcripts were made available to the ARDC and the JIB.  He has at all times never been able to defend his actions, but in his replies, he continues to LIE, and misrepresent the facts to the ARDC.  Peter Schmiedel’s actions have shortened my mother’s life: his arrogant, blatant and ever consistent actions and narrative to various Judges, including the Civil and Federal Courts will in fact, “murder” Mary G. Sykes and also cause me irreparable and egregious harm.
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc. 
773.631-9262 (fax and office line)
Gloria Jean Sykes 
Bon Ami Productions, Inc.